Comments (17)

While not wishing ANYONE to lose their livliehood, Off Licences are in a trade that has some pretty awful negative downsides with the abuse by under age children and the effect this has on their health and anti social behavior.

The fact that leglislation even has to be brought in shows what a problem that cheap alcohol has caused over the years.

While not wishing ANYONE to lose their livliehood, Off Licences are in a trade that has some pretty awful negative downsides with the abuse by under age children and the effect this has on their health and anti social behavior.
The fact that leglislation even has to be brought in shows what a problem that cheap alcohol has caused over the years.Computer-Ade

Can we please be honest about this inevitable price increase. It has nothing to do with binge drinking, health or stopping anti-social behaviour, as it cannot be proved to be an effective deterrent. Therefore the only provable beneficiary will be the Exchequer...I look forward to hearing any evidence to the contrary...

Can we please be honest about this inevitable price increase. It has nothing to do with binge drinking, health or stopping anti-social behaviour, as it cannot be proved to be an effective deterrent. Therefore the only provable beneficiary will be the Exchequer...I look forward to hearing any evidence to the contrary...paultheuver1

This will all work out nicely for George Osbournes' Friends on the boards of the supermarkets. The supermarkets will be able to carry the increase while all the small offies go under and then they gain all the fallen offies trade. The profits then increase to cover any difference in price 'suffered' by the supermarkets.

This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with lining the corporations pockets who in turn line the pockets of the government. Think of that the next time all the Tory sheep re-elect Whittingdale.

This will all work out nicely for George Osbournes' Friends on the boards of the supermarkets. The supermarkets will be able to carry the increase while all the small offies go under and then they gain all the fallen offies trade. The profits then increase to cover any difference in price 'suffered' by the supermarkets.
This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with lining the corporations pockets who in turn line the pockets of the government. Think of that the next time all the Tory sheep re-elect Whittingdale.DontForgetToBreathe

YEAH!!! The Royal College of Physicians, they're in on the conspiracy too, with their cover as qualified doctors who see alcohol addiction every day, they are well placed to back Supermarkets in the quest to make more profits and bankrupt "offies"...and of course those dastardly doctors (all Tories obviously) get a kick back from the supermarkets, the govt give them half of their share! And the Scots, their just the same, and Sheffield university, their study was obviously backed by the supermarkets.

And...just think, to really rub it in, George Osborne and his evil brethren will only drink chateauneuf du pape, and that's already much more expensive than the minimum price you will have to pay for Strongbow!....they'r
e all laughing at you….can I borrow your tin foil hat please?

YEAH!!! The Royal College of Physicians, they're in on the conspiracy too, with their cover as qualified doctors who see alcohol addiction every day, they are well placed to back Supermarkets in the quest to make more profits and bankrupt "offies"...and of course those dastardly doctors (all Tories obviously) get a kick back from the supermarkets, the govt give them half of their share! And the Scots, their just the same, and Sheffield university, their study was obviously backed by the supermarkets.
And...just think, to really rub it in, George Osborne and his evil brethren will only drink chateauneuf du pape, and that's already much more expensive than the minimum price you will have to pay for Strongbow!....they'r
e all laughing at you….can I borrow your tin foil hat please?An alternative view

For the benefit of 'An alternative view'....
Only a fool would deny that the Royal College of Physicians have long lobbied on the abuse of alcohol and it's affect on health, but they clearly state that price is just one factor along with availability and marketing, especially to young people.
Following the widespread media reporting of proposed minimum prices per unit, I'm yet to see similar mention of government addressing those other concerns of the Royal College of Physicians. Until then, only the most naive could believe that this is anything other than, a means of increasing the Treasury's coffers. The following is cut and pasted from: http://www.rcplondon
.ac.uk/policy/reduci
ng-health-harms/alco
hol

The Royal College of Physicians has a long history of raising awareness of the health damage caused by alcohol and has played a crucial role in the debate surrounding government alcohol policy since its first comments on the gin epidemic in 1725.

There is clear evidence that excessive alcohol consumption has a significant impact on individuals' long-term health. Alcohol is a factor in more than 40 serious medical conditions, including liver disease and cancer, and one of the major preventable causes of death in the UK. Alcohol misuse also places a huge burden on the NHS, with the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol consumption rising rapidly in the last ten years.

To tackle this rise in alcohol misuse, the RCP advocates for a coordinated, comprehensive and evidence-based approach to alcohol policy to:

reduce alcohol consumption across the population by addressing the price, availability and marketing of alcohol products, especially to young people
support high quality health services to ensure the early identification and effective treatment of patients with alcohol-related health problems.

For the benefit of 'An alternative view'....
Only a fool would deny that the Royal College of Physicians have long lobbied on the abuse of alcohol and it's affect on health, but they clearly state that price is just one factor along with availability and marketing, especially to young people.
Following the widespread media reporting of proposed minimum prices per unit, I'm yet to see similar mention of government addressing those other concerns of the Royal College of Physicians. Until then, only the most naive could believe that this is anything other than, a means of increasing the Treasury's coffers. The following is cut and pasted from: http://www.rcplondon
.ac.uk/policy/reduci
ng-health-harms/alco
hol
The Royal College of Physicians has a long history of raising awareness of the health damage caused by alcohol and has played a crucial role in the debate surrounding government alcohol policy since its first comments on the gin epidemic in 1725.
There is clear evidence that excessive alcohol consumption has a significant impact on individuals' long-term health. Alcohol is a factor in more than 40 serious medical conditions, including liver disease and cancer, and one of the major preventable causes of death in the UK. Alcohol misuse also places a huge burden on the NHS, with the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol consumption rising rapidly in the last ten years.
To tackle this rise in alcohol misuse, the RCP advocates for a coordinated, comprehensive and evidence-based approach to alcohol policy to:
reduce alcohol consumption across the population by addressing the price, availability and marketing of alcohol products, especially to young people
support high quality health services to ensure the early identification and effective treatment of patients with alcohol-related health problems.paultheuver1

Alcohol consumption has fallen by nearly 20% in England within the last 5 years. This propasal is a nonsense.

What next? Raising the price of petrol because some people drive too fast?....oops, hope that Mr. Osborne doesn't read this!

Alcohol consumption has fallen by nearly 20% in England within the last 5 years. This propasal is a nonsense.
What next? Raising the price of petrol because some people drive too fast?....oops, hope that Mr. Osborne doesn't read this!Regbluebottle

paultheuver1 - My major was in Sarcasm...addressed to the Tory bashing Revolt calling crew who want to blame the big men for everything...

...but as you mention it, if youth y on minimum wage can buy x litres of Cider for a Z pence, preload on it, get trolleyed on more out and about, end up in casualty / nick / someones daughter, then surely doing something about this is a good thing, in the long run saving NHS, Court or social security costs in the longer run?

If one lever to try is to ensure that a few pence is ramped up to a few quid, so be it.

What's your answer? I'm willing to take one for the metaphorical team, I wont whinge about it, I'll drink the same thing I did before, maybe it'll be more expensive, but the world is full of idiots who wont govern themselves, sometimes bad tories have to do bad things to the great unwashed, we went through the same forms of over governance and spun crap from the last lot, and now its all the tories fault?

And as for the motoring debate...don't get me started, its too cheap to get in a car and career around using finite resources and spewing crap out the back of a *car*...not road transport, different problem..., I'm no eco warrior, but I use my car less now than I did 10 years ago, would I have done this if the price of fuel was the same as back then...simple answer, No. Tories are a bunch of tools as they should have sent a message instead of pandering to the moaners who only want to complain about how much everything costs rather the measuring the cost of their inability to look at a bigger picture, they should have left the 3 pence fuel increase on, only then would attitudes and usage start to change more quickly, so I'm afraid, my view is somewhat "Einstienien"...only an idiot would suggest leaving things as they are will change peoples behaviour for the better, I don't profess to know if this will be the final solution, no one does, but bleating about a few pence a week and pointing at all-sorts of other things that could be done feels somewhat puerile

Finally, I feel one should ask if you are concerned about how much this is going to cost you a week, maybe you need to consider your habits?

paultheuver1 - My major was in Sarcasm...addressed to the Tory bashing Revolt calling crew who want to blame the big men for everything...
...but as you mention it, if youth y on minimum wage can buy x litres of Cider for a Z pence, preload on it, get trolleyed on more out and about, end up in casualty / nick / someones daughter, then surely doing something about this is a good thing, in the long run saving NHS, Court or social security costs in the longer run?
If one lever to try is to ensure that a few pence is ramped up to a few quid, so be it.
What's your answer? I'm willing to take one for the metaphorical team, I wont whinge about it, I'll drink the same thing I did before, maybe it'll be more expensive, but the world is full of idiots who wont govern themselves, sometimes bad tories have to do bad things to the great unwashed, we went through the same forms of over governance and spun crap from the last lot, and now its all the tories fault?
And as for the motoring debate...don't get me started, its too cheap to get in a car and career around using finite resources and spewing crap out the back of a *car*...not road transport, different problem..., I'm no eco warrior, but I use my car less now than I did 10 years ago, would I have done this if the price of fuel was the same as back then...simple answer, No. Tories are a bunch of tools as they should have sent a message instead of pandering to the moaners who only want to complain about how much everything costs rather the measuring the cost of their inability to look at a bigger picture, they should have left the 3 pence fuel increase on, only then would attitudes and usage start to change more quickly, so I'm afraid, my view is somewhat "Einstienien"...only an idiot would suggest leaving things as they are will change peoples behaviour for the better, I don't profess to know if this will be the final solution, no one does, but bleating about a few pence a week and pointing at all-sorts of other things that could be done feels somewhat puerile
Finally, I feel one should ask if you are concerned about how much this is going to cost you a week, maybe you need to consider your habits?An alternative view

Just for the record, I declare that I don't have an issue with alcohol. But I really do have an issue with misinformation.
Despite an attempt to lead me off on a tangent, I stand by my argument that a price increase alone, does not help those with an alcohol problem, but it does the Exchequer.
I now read, "only an idiot would suggest leaving things as they are will change peoples behaviour for the better". This is surely the mutterings of someone who cannot back up their assertions. Also, no one but you (An alternative view), has suggested we do nothing about alcohol abuse. By all means increase the duty on alcohol, all I would like is some real evidence, that the revenue raised will be used to change behaviour.
Talk is cheap, very cheap when it comes from politicians. This country needs more people who are prepared to question what we are fed as true, otherwise we might as well be the sheep politicians want us to be. It's blind ignorance that allows the cynical to abuse worthy causes.
Jumping on to the bandwagon...if people had just blindly accept what politicians tell them, we would be paying the full VAT on domestic fuel...as was proposed by a Tory government.

Facts, not gainsay and blind faith, will help me take on an alternative view...

Just for the record, I declare that I don't have an issue with alcohol. But I really do have an issue with misinformation.
Despite an attempt to lead me off on a tangent, I stand by my argument that a price increase alone, does not help those with an alcohol problem, but it does the Exchequer.
I now read, "only an idiot would suggest leaving things as they are will change peoples behaviour for the better". This is surely the mutterings of someone who cannot back up their assertions. Also, no one but you (An alternative view), has suggested we do nothing about alcohol abuse. By all means increase the duty on alcohol, all I would like is some real evidence, that the revenue raised will be used to change behaviour.
Talk is cheap, very cheap when it comes from politicians. This country needs more people who are prepared to question what we are fed as true, otherwise we might as well be the sheep politicians want us to be. It's blind ignorance that allows the cynical to abuse worthy causes.
Jumping on to the bandwagon...if people had just blindly accept what politicians tell them, we would be paying the full VAT on domestic fuel...as was proposed by a Tory government.
Facts, not gainsay and blind faith, will help me take on an alternative view...paultheuver1

If you believe that raising the price of cheap alcohol is just ONE of a number of measures that needs to be taken, then it's surely a start?

So the money ends up in the Treasury - well that Treasury (which belongs to the Country not the Exchequer) is in negative balance anyway, so it would make a slight dent in that negativity - which by the way is something we should be avoiding and not spreading.

It's all very well to shout down an idea, but it would be more positive to suggest a better one to replace it with.

If you believe that raising the price of cheap alcohol is just ONE of a number of measures that needs to be taken, then it's surely a start?
So the money ends up in the Treasury - well that Treasury (which belongs to the Country not the Exchequer) is in negative balance anyway, so it would make a slight dent in that negativity - which by the way is something we should be avoiding and not spreading.
It's all very well to shout down an idea, but it would be more positive to suggest a better one to replace it with.Computer-Ade

believe you have misinterpreted what I actually believe. In reference to the comment made by, an alternative view, I pointed out that the Royal College of Physicians website states the following:

To tackle this rise in alcohol misuse, the RCP advocates for a coordinated, comprehensive and evidence-based approach to alcohol policy to: reduce alcohol consumption across the population by addressing the price, availability and marketing of alcohol products, especially to young people
support high quality health services to ensure the early identification and effective treatment of patients with alcohol-related health problems.

In essence the medical experts advocate a coordinated and comprehensive approach....they mention price within their coordinated and comprehensive approach, to think otherwise is at the very least misguided.

My reasoning behind my original post on this subject, is that, most of us living in the real world know that those with dependencies aren't normally deterred by price. Statistics show that crimes like shoplifting and burglary are committed daily by drug users in order to pay for their habits. There's no reason to believe that the alcohol dependant will act any differently if alcohol prices increase and they no longer have sufficient funds to maintain their habit...

The trouble with this country is we have too many idealists and too few realists.

If we are serious about helping those adversely affected by alcohol, a reasonable start would be to ban all alcohol advertising. At the same time remove all the so called 'Alcopops' from sale.

Alcohol is far too widely available, through the many 'off-licence' outlets, We have to drastically reduce their number and the regulations need to be upgraded and strongly enforced, I would advocate that just a single breach of the regulations should mean the loss of the licence to sell alcohol and a substantial fine be imposed. Any retailer selling alcohol without a licence would be severely fined and if found to be a re-offender, have their right to operate as a general trader removed.

Licensed retailers link reordering to sales via their computers, even the smaller outlets have access to this system. Supermarkets through their loyalty cards record everything we buy and could easily flag a trend of excessive alcohol purchasing, and should act responsibly, as a publican has to when confronted with excess. Failure to do so could warrant a substantial fine and loss of licence..

The vast sums of money no longer used advertising alcohol along with any extra raised through fines, should be diverted in to education and treating dependency.

Of course being someone living in the real world, if my proposals were implement, the Treasury might well see a reduction in revenue form the sale of alcohol.

Please let us hear your ideas Computer-Ade......le
t's not hear talk of blindly giving to George Osborne, who is Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury.

believe you have misinterpreted what I actually believe. In reference to the comment made by, an alternative view, I pointed out that the Royal College of Physicians website states the following:
To tackle this rise in alcohol misuse, the RCP advocates for a coordinated, comprehensive and evidence-based approach to alcohol policy to: reduce alcohol consumption across the population by addressing the price, availability and marketing of alcohol products, especially to young people
support high quality health services to ensure the early identification and effective treatment of patients with alcohol-related health problems.
In essence the medical experts advocate a coordinated and comprehensive approach....they mention price within their coordinated and comprehensive approach, to think otherwise is at the very least misguided.
My reasoning behind my original post on this subject, is that, most of us living in the real world know that those with dependencies aren't normally deterred by price. Statistics show that crimes like shoplifting and burglary are committed daily by drug users in order to pay for their habits. There's no reason to believe that the alcohol dependant will act any differently if alcohol prices increase and they no longer have sufficient funds to maintain their habit...
The trouble with this country is we have too many idealists and too few realists.
If we are serious about helping those adversely affected by alcohol, a reasonable start would be to ban all alcohol advertising. At the same time remove all the so called 'Alcopops' from sale.
Alcohol is far too widely available, through the many 'off-licence' outlets, We have to drastically reduce their number and the regulations need to be upgraded and strongly enforced, I would advocate that just a single breach of the regulations should mean the loss of the licence to sell alcohol and a substantial fine be imposed. Any retailer selling alcohol without a licence would be severely fined and if found to be a re-offender, have their right to operate as a general trader removed.
Licensed retailers link reordering to sales via their computers, even the smaller outlets have access to this system. Supermarkets through their loyalty cards record everything we buy and could easily flag a trend of excessive alcohol purchasing, and should act responsibly, as a publican has to when confronted with excess. Failure to do so could warrant a substantial fine and loss of licence..
The vast sums of money no longer used advertising alcohol along with any extra raised through fines, should be diverted in to education and treating dependency.
Of course being someone living in the real world, if my proposals were implement, the Treasury might well see a reduction in revenue form the sale of alcohol.
Please let us hear your ideas Computer-Ade......le
t's not hear talk of blindly giving to George Osborne, who is Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury.paultheuver1

Your well argued views would mean a lot more if you didn't always appear to end them with a petty dig at the big bad tory chancellor....that was my original sarcastic point and remains so....

Personal responsibility rather than blaming easy targets would help, I won't blame the govt for my kids coming home trolleyed when they're older, I wont blame saatchi and saatchi, I wont blame the fact that not enough of the things I "reckon" would have worked were done to stop this happening .... I'll blame me for not teaching them valuable life lessons, but perhaps if they don't have enough money in their purse to buy wasteful and destructive luxuries, maybe that'll make them think.....like me and my reduction in driving and fuel use, that's got nothing to do with Audi and BP stopping advertising, it's about it costing too much.

Your well argued views would mean a lot more if you didn't always appear to end them with a petty dig at the big bad tory chancellor....that was my original sarcastic point and remains so....
Personal responsibility rather than blaming easy targets would help, I won't blame the govt for my kids coming home trolleyed when they're older, I wont blame saatchi and saatchi, I wont blame the fact that not enough of the things I "reckon" would have worked were done to stop this happening .... I'll blame me for not teaching them valuable life lessons, but perhaps if they don't have enough money in their purse to buy wasteful and destructive luxuries, maybe that'll make them think.....like me and my reduction in driving and fuel use, that's got nothing to do with Audi and BP stopping advertising, it's about it costing too much.An alternative view

I have to agree with Alternate view. Co-ordinated approaches are all very well but if we wait for a multi phased co-ordinated plan, we will wait forever and like so many plans before it NOTHING will ever happen at all.

Paul - you make many good points, but please don't spoil it with the politics. It doesn't matter who is in Government, the Chancellor doesn't own the Treasury - WE all do. Hiking the price of alcohol does not give him a chance to add a Tennis Court to his Mansion in the country.

Kids have always managed to get their hands on cider or fags when young, goodness knows I did - but when I was young it wasn't so cheap I could drink myself into oblivion and then walk into a moving car or chuck a rubbish bin through a shop window.

I have to agree with Alternate view. Co-ordinated approaches are all very well but if we wait for a multi phased co-ordinated plan, we will wait forever and like so many plans before it NOTHING will ever happen at all.
Paul - you make many good points, but please don't spoil it with the politics. It doesn't matter who is in Government, the Chancellor doesn't own the Treasury - WE all do. Hiking the price of alcohol does not give him a chance to add a Tennis Court to his Mansion in the country.
Kids have always managed to get their hands on cider or fags when young, goodness knows I did - but when I was young it wasn't so cheap I could drink myself into oblivion and then walk into a moving car or chuck a rubbish bin through a shop window.Computer-Ade

Oh for crying out loud. Why am I trying to reason with people who revert to avoiding the issue I first raised by meaningless twaddle.
Let me get straight what I said....RAISING THE PRICE OF ALCOHOL ALONE WILL PROFIT THE EXCHEQUER.

An alternative view...mentioned the Royal College of Physicians, whereupon I pointed out they are calling for a coordinated approach. Then persists in going off on various tangents.

Computer-Ade....Stat
es, "So the money ends up in the Treasury - well that Treasury (which belongs to the Country not the Exchequer) is in negative balance anyway, so it would make a slight dent in that negativity - which by the way is something we should be avoiding and not spreading." Which appears to endorse balancing the books at any cost. The very point I was indirectly making. I also pointed out that George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury to emphasise that he is the one in charge of the Exchequer/Treasury, so ownership is irrelevant.

Finally...I hope, My initial comment relates to a current situation and does not name a politician but a department. I would comment the same, regardless of who was at the helm, as I'm my own man and not constrained by political views or affiliations.
Others chose to go along the political naming route and yes, I did then comment on the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel by an earlier Conservative government, purely as an example to emphasise where blind acceptance could have taken us. Smoke and mirrors are the tool of the shady, to dupe the gullible. I asked for honesty, to date I've been accused of Tory bashing, ignoring the problem and blaming everyone but myself. All I've seen from those defending the increase is red herrings, nothing of substance. Such as the mention of tennis courts...come on, where did that come from.

As much as I like to debate, I see no reason to, if reason is ignored for the sake of ideology.

Oh for crying out loud. Why am I trying to reason with people who revert to avoiding the issue I first raised by meaningless twaddle.
Let me get straight what I said....RAISING THE PRICE OF ALCOHOL ALONE WILL PROFIT THE EXCHEQUER.
An alternative view...mentioned the Royal College of Physicians, whereupon I pointed out they are calling for a coordinated approach. Then persists in going off on various tangents.
Computer-Ade....Stat
es, "So the money ends up in the Treasury - well that Treasury (which belongs to the Country not the Exchequer) is in negative balance anyway, so it would make a slight dent in that negativity - which by the way is something we should be avoiding and not spreading." Which appears to endorse balancing the books at any cost. The very point I was indirectly making. I also pointed out that George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury to emphasise that he is the one in charge of the Exchequer/Treasury, so ownership is irrelevant.
Finally...I hope, My initial comment relates to a current situation and does not name a politician but a department. I would comment the same, regardless of who was at the helm, as I'm my own man and not constrained by political views or affiliations.
Others chose to go along the political naming route and yes, I did then comment on the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel by an earlier Conservative government, purely as an example to emphasise where blind acceptance could have taken us. Smoke and mirrors are the tool of the shady, to dupe the gullible. I asked for honesty, to date I've been accused of Tory bashing, ignoring the problem and blaming everyone but myself. All I've seen from those defending the increase is red herrings, nothing of substance. Such as the mention of tennis courts...come on, where did that come from.
As much as I like to debate, I see no reason to, if reason is ignored for the sake of ideology.paultheuver1

The quality of a statement is not proportional to the number of words so quite simply.

The Treasury needs money - lots of it.

Cheap booze is causing havoc with kids.

Answer - make cheap booze VERY expensive and put the extra money in the Treasurery.

No problem.

The quality of a statement is not proportional to the number of words so quite simply.
The Treasury needs money - lots of it.
Cheap booze is causing havoc with kids.
Answer - make cheap booze VERY expensive and put the extra money in the Treasurery.
No problem.Computer-Ade